Obama nominates new IGs, but high-profile vacancies remain

By Adam Mazmanian

Jul 03, 2013

With three appointments in June, President Barack Obama is closing the gap on major vacancies in the inspector general ranks. But high-profile watchdog vacancies still remain at the Interior, Labor and Homeland Security departments.

On Capitol Hill, the long wait to get permanent appointees into top IG posts was riling members of both parties. In June, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), called on the president to fill the permanent IG posts at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Additionally, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) promised to hold up all State Department confirmations until an IG was named for that agency.

Obama nominated Steve Linick, currently IG at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), for the State IG position on June 27. The post has been vacant for five years and the subject of increasing controversy because of the ongoing investigation into the government's response to the attack in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others.

The president also nominated Deputy IG Michael Carroll to be permanent IG at USAID and Jon Rymer to be IG at the Defense Department. Rymer is currently IG at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and was interim IG at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A burgeoning scandal at DHS is ramping up pressure on Obama to name a permanent IG. Acting IG Charles Edwards allegedly gave his wife a job in violation of anti-nepotism rules, abused agency resources to attend graduate school classes in Florida, misused government vehicles, shared whistleblower information with agency officials, and a host of other violations. They are detailed in a scathing letter from Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairwoman and ranking member, respectively, of the Financial and Contracting Oversight Subcommittee of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Edwards has until July 19 to respond to the allegations.

The challenges for acting IGs

According to former DOD IG Joseph Schmitz, acting IGs are at a disadvantage because they lack the independence and clear lines of communication that Senate-confirmed appointees have.

"A Senate-confirmed IG has six congressional committees to which he or she reports almost as if they are a board of directors," Schmitz told FCW. They are the authorizing committees, appropriations subcommittees, and government oversight committees in the House and the Senate.

"When you get a letter from the chairman and ranking member of a committee, it gets your attention," he said. "You pretty much have to respond."

Joe Newman, director of communications at the Project on Government Oversight, said the president can remove a Senate-confirmed IG, but he has to notify Congress before doing so. "It means they are going to be scrutinized," said Newman, whose organization has been vocal about the need to fill IG vacancies.

Schmitz, who wrote "The Inspector General Handbook," said acting or temporary IGs do not have the opportunity to develop relationships with members of Congress, which begins with the confirmation process. Acting IGs are further handicapped by their status as civil servants working inside the institutions they are supposed to monitor.

"You have to make judgment calls that might not be viewed favorably in your department, where your livelihood is at stake," Schmitz said.

"With an acting or temporary IG, you have someone who is basically working for the secretary" of his or her agency, Newman said. "That can be problematic."

Furthermore, deputies who are thrust into acting IG roles are not always suited to the top post. "You might have someone who is a great auditor but not someone who has the personality to be a lightning rod," he said. Schmitz agreed that the IG job isn't for everybody. "When you're an IG, you have to go in to the boss and say, 'This is a really ugly baby, and it's yours,'" he said. "That's what they teach you at Army IG school."

The nominations of Rymer at Defense and Linick at State should help those agencies, but also create new vacancies at FDIC and FHFA. In addition to the unfilled slots at Interior, DHS and Labor, there are IG vacancies at the Capitol Police, the Federal Maritime Commission and other agencies.

"We hope it doesn't go five years before the FDIC vacancy is filled," Newman said. "Hopefully, this is a sign that the administration is starting to give IGs priority."

About the Author

Adam Mazmanian is a staff writer covering Congress, the FCC and other key agencies. Connect with him on Twitter: @thisismaz.

FCW investigated efforts by the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to improve a joint data repository on military and veteran suicides. Something as impersonal and mundane as incomplete datasets could be exacerbating a national tragedy.

The National Information Exchange Model's usefulness extends far beyond its origins in justice and law enforcement.

Reader comments

Mon, Jul 8, 2013

No Inspector General should be able to serve more than 7 years, period. Rymer's short tenure at the SEC OIG should be carefully examined during his confirmation hearing.

Mon, Jul 8, 2013

This administration has had well over 4 years to fill these positions - but has had no problems on very quickly creating the biggest bunch of czars for his cronies. The fact that the IG's are to stop fraud, waste and abuse, adds to the hugh pile of evidence that this administration is likely the most corrupt ever, as well as incompetent.

Fri, Jul 5, 2013
Dwight Haskins
United States

I do not believe that Congress should approve Mr. Rymer’s nomination given my experience with him at the FDIC. I painstakingly documented and reported to Mr. Rymer and his deputies, how FDIC officials were ignoring my concerns and warnings about the problems I was seeing at Washington Mutual.
I provided evidence (shown below) to Inspector General Rymer and his staff a detailed account of my significant concerns that went ignored by my senior agency officials month by month until it was too late to take action. I provided this information to Mr. Rymer and his staff in March 2009, a year before Mr. Rymer and my manager went before Congress to provide their testimony on the failure of Washington Mutual.
None of the information I presented to Mr. Rymer and his staff made it into the IG’s final report, nor did Mr. Rymer bring to light any of my information during his testimony before Congress. I knew my manager, Associate Director, John Corston, would likely not be forthcoming in his testimony before Congress, and I was right.
I provide one telling example, below, of a disclosure I provided Mr. Rymer and his assistant. It is unfortunate that this disclosure just like the others I provided to Mr. Rymer and his staff went unaddressed. We can see that Mr. Rymer does not appear to be supportive of “whistleblowers.” Incidentally, the Office of Special Counsel and Merit System Protection Board have not considered any of my disclosures to the Office of Inspector General, to the Ombudsmen, to the Chief Auditor, or to the FDIC chairman to be “whistleblower” disclosures covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act.
This, of course, is a misapplication of law by those government watchdog authorities and one more item that Congress ought to consider when deciding to approve Mr. Rymer or not as Inspector General of the Department of Defense.
Mr. Rymer became the FDIC inspector general in 2006. He was put under the spotlight when he briefed Congress in 2010 on the failure of Washington Mutual Bank, the largest bank failure in the nation’s history. FDIC and the Office of Thrift Supervision were heavily criticized for their lack of oversight of Washington Mutual, whose collapse prefaced the widespread financial meltdown.
http://govwhistleblower.wordpress.com

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately
after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.